Why I Changed From KJV to ESV

This year, 2011, the King James Bible turned 400! The King James Bible was originally translated by a group of scholars under the authority of King James in England in the year 1611. That Bible translation has been used for four centuries and has really been blessed by the Lord. In fact, the KJV has been called the “text of the Reformation.” The text used by Martin Luther and John Calvin during the days of the Reformation was what would later become known as the Textus Receptus. That is the text used by scholars during the translation of the King James Version.

Stephen Nichols has written, “Arguably, the King James Version stands as the grandest of the English Bible translations. It has been dubbed a monument of literary translation, considered a sublime text. To be sure, for contemporary audiences the sublime prose can be confusing at times, more obscuring than helpful. Considering that it is nearly four hundred years old, however, it clearly has staying power. The King James Version also provides a good anchor for the history of the English Bible. It’s the result of nearly four centuries of work that led up to it, and has, for another four centuries, continued to cast its shadow. We can frame our history of the English Bible around it.” [1]

I can remember my first Bible as a boy. It had a blue cover, on the front were the words, “Holy Bible” and on the spine the words, “King James Version” were clearly visible. I recall as a boy asking my dad to explain why the words “King James Version” was written on the spine of the Bible. It was then that I started processing the facts related to the Bible translations, the original languages, and other important issues related to the English versions of our Bible that I would later investigate further while in seminary.

After returning to my home church to serve as pastor, I began wrestling with the issue of the Bible translation that I use for preaching and teaching the Word of God. I grew up in a context where I studied the King James Version (hereafter KJV), heard it preached in the pulpit (most of the time), and memorized Scripture from the KJV. As a young boy (preteen age), my parents bought me my first study Bible. It was a KJV study Bible with bonded red leather. I still have it in my library in my office today. As a pastor, I have preached from the KJV and haven’t really considered any alterations from that until over the past year when I became convicted about my task as a pastor.

The Bible is very clear that as a pastor, I’m called to rightly handle the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). I’m also given the task of explaining the text of Scripture to the people each week, and that is a very humbling job. My job as a pastor is to quote God each week from His Word, point people to Him, and clearly present the facts of Scripture to them so that they can understand. Like many pastors, I stand each week behind the sacred desk of God with trembling knees at my responsibility. It is a thrilling and wonderful calling – but one that I don’t approach lightly. John Piper writes, “Preaching is God’s appointed means for the conversion of sinners, the awakening of the church, and the preservation of the saints. If preaching fails in its task, the consequences are infinitely terrible.” [2] Below I want to share with you why I changed from the KJV to the ESV (English Standard Version) in my personal life and public ministry.

The Reality of Translations

One thing that I’ve had the privilege to learn through my studies in seminary and as a pastor is that translations are actually great for the advancement of truth into the language of different people groups and cultures. For us, the English translations such as the KJV and other modern translations serve us well as we use them to read and proclaim the Word of God.

While certain people believe that the KJV is the only inspired Bible in the English language, we must reject that belief based on several key facts.

“If it was good enough for Paul, it’s good enough for me.”

Certainly some people have actually made similar statements regarding the KJV, but we must reject the idea that the KJV is the only inspired English Bible. The Bible was not written in old English from the 1600s. It was originally written in Hebrew and Greek. All translations, including the KJV, are modern copies of ancient documents into the language of our present day. The fact is – we just don’t speak with an old English style today. There is nothing wrong with reading or preaching from the KJV if that is a decision based on preference, but it should never be a decision that stems from a belief that all other English translations are perverted.

I recall a gentleman who was a member of the church I pastored several years ago coming to my office and railing on me because I was not 100% committed to the KJV. Keep in mind, I preached from the KJV, but because I would allow other preachers to preach from the NASB (New American Standard Bible) or the NKJV (New King James Version) – he was extremely angry. So, I turned to him and pulled off of my library shelf a copy of an original 1611 KJV (not an original – but a copy of an original as it appeared in the 1611 edition). I opened it to the Gospel of John and turned to chapter 3. I asked the man who was arguing vehemently for the KJV as the only English translation to read John 3:16. He looked down at the page and refused to read it. It took several attempts before I could get him to try, and when he finally attempted it – he stumbled over the text. The point I made to him was that the version of the KJV he uses today is merely an edited modern edition of the KJV. So, if the 1611 version is the only inspired version, he should be using that rather than the one he currently uses.

If the KJV is the only inspired version of the English Bible, how did anyone get saved through the preaching of God’s Word in England in 1610? The fact is, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ (Romans 10:17). If someone was converted by the preaching of a faulty translation, we should doubt their conversion – right?

If the KJV is the only inspired version of the English Bible, why is God blessing other nations and people groups with modern translations but holding English speaking people to one version that was translated 400 years ago? That seems strange – right?

It is a fact that the KJV used a specific family of manuscripts (Byzantine) that are younger than the manuscripts (Alexandrian) used by other modern translations. Since we don’t have one original copy of any Biblical book, we rely upon the copies of the original letters in their original languages. Some of these manuscript families are older than others – and it makes sense that the older and closer to the original letter the more accurate the translation would become – but that is not the view of the KJV Only advocates.

The KJV was a modern translation taken from the printed edition of the Greek New Testament by Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus’ text was eventually called, the Textus Receptus. In fact, it was Erasmus who found himself fighting against the traditional text of his day when he sought to publish his Greek New Testament.

Many people who are KJV Only advocates are guilty of worshiping the KJV rather than the God presented in the KJV. Be cautious of those who are constantly trying to hand you tracts about how the KJV is the only inspired version. Isn’t there a better tract that we should be handing out (hint – a gospel tract)?

On another note, we can certainly agree that some translations are weak translations that should be pointed out as such. In recent years, the TNIV translation received a huge opposition as it sought to take the gender neutral position – thus changing the masculinity of God into a neutral position. Other translations such as the NIV are more of a phrase for phrase translation rather than a more rigid word for word approach. When it comes to strict Bible study and memorization, we should search for a more wooden approach to translation such as the NASB, NKJV, or ESV rather than The Message.

The Responsibility of the Pastor

As a pastor, I have been charged to feed the flock of God through His Word. Nothing is more frightening than the task of standing and speaking as God’s ambassador and approaching the sacred desk of God with a lazy attitude toward His Word. If I am called to rightly handle His Word and to feed His flock, then I must choose a solid translation that will enable me to be confident about my work as a pastor.

Each week, I spend hours studying the specific paragraph of God’s Word that I will be preaching the following Lord’s Day. I understand that God has called me and appointed me to explain the single meaning of the text of Scripture to the people. In other words, I realize that we should never approach the Bible with a buffet style line of meanings depending upon who is interpreting the text. With that being established, I have the responsibility to know it and to present it from the pulpit in a way that causes the people to worship God. This process involves many hours of studying the context of the passage, background of the text, specific words, and then lifting out the main idea and meaning of the text to the people.

In an attempt to become more efficient in the pulpit, I have found it necessary for me to go through a single translation method as opposed to a double translation method while preaching the text of Scripture to the congregation. I have discovered that much of my time while preaching from the KJV has been centered on explaining the English word selection of the KJV in comparison to our modern day vernacular. This process is what I term the – double text translation method. I translate and study from the original languages to the modern English, and then while preaching I have to work backward into the old English and explain what “greedy of filthy lucre” (1 Timothy 3:8) actually means in today’s English language. Therefore, my task as a preacher is most efficient when I have only one translation level to work through as opposed to a double level of translation to explain to the people who are listening. Preaching from the ESV frees me up to study the original languages and explain what the context and overall meaning is from the text without going back into the history of old English words used in the KJV.

Goals for the Future

One thing is certain, and that is the need for biblically saturated minds and hearts outside of the church sanctuary. One reason that many young people claim that they don’t read their Bible is due to the fact that they don’t understand it. Take that scenario and it intensifies greatly when old English vocabulary is being used as opposed to modern English. In order to cultivate a community of people who have a love for God’s Word, the choice of Bible translation needs to be one that is trustworthy, word for word translation, and utilizes the language of the people. With that as a goal, it seems that the ESV is a better choice for our ministries than the KJV in 2011. If we were living in England in 1611 or 1657, the KJV would be the best option for us – especially if we don’t read Greek and Hebrew. However, since we live in the United States in the year 2011, the best choice for us simply isn’t the KJV.

I have a love for the KJV and often when I quote the Bible – the KJV is what is spoken. However, over the years to come, I will be memorizing the text of the ESV and I am certain that within the next 5 to 10 years, my quotations will sound more ESVish than KJVish. Again, there is nothing wrong with a person who loves the KJV and decides to use it as their preferred translation. I am simply seeking to share my heart and reasons for changing from the KJV to the ESV. In the end, I have become convinced that the ESV is a better translation. It uses a better selection of manuscripts for the translation and it presents the text into a modern day word for word English edition of the Bible.

Whatever your decision is – make sure it is well thought out. Never make your decision on a Bible translation based on the following:

It had a really cool cover.

It was on sale.

It is the KJV and there is no other inspired English version.

My friend has this same translation.

It is extremely important to ask good quality questions when choosing a Bible translation. If you are buying a Bible for your child, grandchild, or a family member, I would encourage you to consult your pastor prior to your purchase (especially if you are buying a study Bible). At the end of the day, the choice of your Bible translation is a very important decision and should not be approached lightly. If your goal for your children is for them to know the Bible and enjoy reading it – you may want to try introducing them to the ESV.

J.C. Ryle said, “Be very sure of this – people never reject the Bible because they cannot understand it. They understand it too well; they understand that it condemns their own behavior; they understand that it witnesses against their own sins, and summons them to judgment. They try to believe it is false and useless, because they don’t like to believe it is true.” [3]

Related

31 Comments

Interesting post. My experience is the opposite of yours. While I’ve had a KJV since shortly after becoming a Christian, I cut my teeth on modern versions, mostly the NASB and the NKJV, while comparing the KJV only occasionally. (Part of that may also be due to having attended churches that used modern versions.) However, in honor of the 400th Anniversary, I am attempting to read the KJV through this year.

Am I correct in assuming you are a Southern Baptist given your connection to SBTS? Are there very many SB churches in your area that still use the KJV? I’ve had the occasion to visit quite a few in Louisiana over the years, including some smaller rural churches, and I think only one used it. More often you have the NKJV, NASB, NIV or now ESV or occasionally the HCSB.

I read the ESV regularly for about a year shortly after it was released. But I have to confess that I’m not a big fan of it. That’s in part because about 90% of it is the same as the RSV I had to read in liberal college Bible classes. As Piper says, it’s the RSV with the theological problems fixed. But it does seem to have what could be called occasionally idiosyncratic renderings, particularly in the OT. With regard to more literal versions, there are some features in the NASB and NKJV (and even the KJV to some extent) that I prefer as well.

Although it doesn’t always read as well from a literary standpoint, the NASB often uses more contemporary language than the ESV, probably a result of the the ESV being a light revision of the RSV, which is an older translation than the NASB.

Tim
on March 26, 2015 at 1:38 pm

Josh, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the Bible translation issue. First of all, point #4 “older is better” is an invalid argument, especially hinged upon the verified thousands of manuscripts that agree with the Byzantine/Antiochan manuscripts which the KJV bases upon. Take into account the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls which also verify a consistency with the Byzantine/Antiochan manuscripts…again,verified again and again. While there have been many revisions, the KJV has never undergone a desire to “present something new” which most modern translations declare to attempt.

Secondly, one thing that is forgotten is that the manuscripts used to translate the KJV, stand as a work of tremendous literature even in their translation. Perhaps the most grievous crime of all is the textual liberties that modern translations take when “translating.” As a tremendous work of literature the author determines intent. The vast majority of modern translations seek to “imply meaning” where they feel the author wasn’t clear. What is more important? Sticking to the words (as exact as we possibly can) that the author wrote when translating or, deciding to translation meaning over form? This is the most dangerous aspect that is occurring in modern translations. Authorial intention is being replaced by subjective interpretation. Formal equivalence is has been, and should be, the only way to translate literature. Instead, dynamic equivalence (the large majority of modern translations) is becoming the mainstay. While I respect the need for certain translations to assist in third-world countries, such as Eugine Nida who developed dynamic equivalence, at some point education and personal development should bring individuals to grasp scripture in an “as close to the authorial form” as possible. We would NEVER do this to Shakespeare, Hemmingway, or others. If we did, we would call it “commentary” or “reading notes.” To any literary scholar it would be considered a corrupt text. Let’s not do away with modern translations, they help! Instead, lets not call them “better, less archaic, and all the other bywords,” and instead call them “commentary” which most of them truly are.

Brad Horton
on August 6, 2011 at 5:20 am

Josh,
I have to come to a similar conclusion as you have. I use the NKJV but like the ESV as well. Honestly, I was a 100% KJV ONLY for years until some facts got in the way. The KJV only controversy by James R White helped me to grasp some of the issues I was struggling with as well. An honest study of the facts around the translations will help any genuine believer seeking to understand the issue.

The issue is still alive to some degree in rural churches where a man can meet all the criteria for a pastor but not be totally committed to the KJV and then be ruled out as a pastor. God bless your work at Prays Mill.

White has been around a while but is wrong many times as he contradicts himself over the years.KJV Bible was used by the English to this day and it is not by our understanding we understand anything. True preaching is how we hear the gospel of Jesus Christ and He can be only one truth. Since all other versions contradict themselves and you can not study one today as it changes every 5 years these day. Look at an old ESV from the 1950’s and you are not reading the same text as a new one off the shelf today. Yet the KJV is exactly the same as the 1611 version. Ya will tell me its not but I can read it just ine and have compared mine to the original. And the time old argument of they used greek and hebrew. yet the fact is aramaic was used. syrian, bizentine. many texts were used including erasimus textus receptis. all versions KJV and before were all in harmony yet all after it is not because none of the new versions us the textus receptis at all. They all use a text never used by Paul or Peter or anyone else. It was found in a monistary, It was not the oldest text as Syrian has not been the oldest and it agrees with textus receptis. KJV has over 5000 manuscriptus to date agree with it, but only 40 have been found to support any new bible text. Not to mention we must worship Jesus in Spirit and in truth. Yet there is only one truth. NIV calls Lucifer the morning star making Jesus fall from heaven. Does your bible call Jesus the devil? Mine doesnt. And lets say Jesus is the Word of God. John calls him that, in the old testament he was the angel of the Lord, the Spoken language of God. He preserves his words. Yet this article states what did peole use before the KJV Bible. Well one thing is for sure they didnt use the ESV since it was from Alexandria Text which was used by no one outside of Origen and his non believers of Jesus as God. The divinity of Jesus is not in the new versions. It was taken out more times then you can look up. Prophesies were taken out of Jesus. The Blood, The water and much more. Three bare witness, Just pull up a chair and side down and start looking up what verses are missing. There is a narrow path people. There is false doctrines. Amos said they will look north, and east, and not find the true word of God. Why is that? Its because there is a true word of God. There is only one word of God Jesus and he spoke through Holy men of old, not translators. Look into two high priests of the Nazis by the name of kettle. That Hebrew this article talks about in the ESV is partly their translations. Yup all modern bibles have Nazi Hebrew translations. Hoyt and Westcott, A Satanist of the Ghostly guild and Thelema group and Hoyt a non believer in Jesus as God. Yeah they translated your book. So before you stop with one mans lies then try to get away from the seminar of Satan and get into the Word of the one true God Jesus. Only by the Holy Ghost do you understand anything.

Brad Horton
on August 6, 2011 at 6:11 am

Your comment “Many people who are KJV Only advocates are guilty of worshiping the KJV rather than the God presented in the KJV.” The past two revival meetings that I have been asked to come preach about a week before the meeting the pastors have called and made sure that I use the KJV. I still do in the pulpit most of the time, however, it does not seem they are concerned with my doctrine just as long as I use the KJV.

Jesus is the Word. He is the KJV Bible as that is his spoken word kept for us to read. It is alive and it shows truth. If you worship Jesus you are worshiping the Word. It is inseparable. How can you not understand it.

Wesley Remley
on November 15, 2014 at 9:25 am

Tim,

Please do some research. Study the Greek words “logos” and “rhema”. Understand this: Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever! For you to state that “He is the KJV Bible” is for you to imply that Jesus is the following:

1) not eternal
2) created, not the self-existent Elohim
3) not pre-existent to His own creation
4) a liar, in that He has not caught up His saints, returned to the earth as the Bible describes, nor judged the world with fire, etc.
5) mutable, as the KJV you use is most likely not the 1611 version
6) English, not a Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic-speaking Galilean
7) already returned to earth, not having descended bodily in glory from heaven in a cloud, but printed in ink on paper

I could go on and on. Your statement is utterly absurd. I don’t say this to personally insult you; I am stating the fact that your statement is heretical in the most concrete sense of the word. Your statement is a contradiction of the text of the KJV (and every other Bible version) in thousands of instances.

Your comment above may be a representation of you, but it is not you. Understand the difference. God’s Word in written form–whether KJV or the autographed writings of Moses, David, John, Paul, etc.–is not God Himself. You are severely misreading, misunderstanding, misinterpreting, and misapplying John 1. Again, research the difference between “logos” and “rhema”. That may help you see the truth concerning your error.

Furthermore, you have made statements in a previous comment that are also severely erroneous, or outright lies. For example, you stated:

“Look at an old ESV from the 1950′s and you are not reading the same text as a new one off the shelf today. Yet the KJV is exactly the same as the 1611 version.”

Fact: The ESV didn’t exist in the 1950s, just as the KJV didn’t exist in the 1550s.

Fact: The modern editions of the KJV are not the 1611 version. Although they are theologically identical, there are some textual variances. (God does not change!)

Are you deceived or attempting to deceive others, or both? It seems that you are either grossly ignorant or devious.

Just because I advocate the use of the KJB does NOT mean that I am worshiping the KJB rather than Yahweh! What a most preposterous proposition! “Better” translation? Doesn’t that mean the ESV “more superior” than the KJB? If you prefer any Bible versions to your whims and fancies, that’s your personal preference – not mine. If you truly believe that Yahweh is MORE glorified with the newest Bible version on sale today as in the ESV (by John McArthur), fine…go ahead; use it but just do NOT utter such words like “Many people who are KJV Only advocates are guilty of worshiping the KJV rather than the God presented in the KJV.” By the same token, your insistence that worshipers should now revert to using the ESV because it is proven to be of a “BETTER” translation. BTW, “better” in what sense?? More superior? If NOT more superior, why should I go for it if every Born Again member of my family is using the KJB? That would be a fallacy! If that’s the intention of the heart, then why not REPLACE all the KJB with your ESV and distribute FOC?? Do you have enough monies to do that?? I do NOT believe that the ESV is a”better” translation! I believe that the KJB is still the BEST preferred Bible around today not because I worship it but because I believe Yahweh has always been glorified by genuine Christians all over the world for >400 years and I do NOT believe an iota that many of them went to Hell because they worshiped the KJB rather than Yahweh! That’s just plain RUBBISH brother! Need I say more?? BTW, why don’t you view the videos on “KJV Bible versus Other Bible Versions (7 parts)”?? Shalom & Agape Love…..

MIKE
on December 20, 2012 at 10:43 am

Is the ESV a better Reformed Translation?

Not when there are words and verses missing. See Acts 8:37, 1 Samuel 13:1.

Acts 8:36-38

36 And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

Where’s verse 37?

1 Samuel 13:1

Saul was . . . years old when he began to reign, and he reigned . . . and two years over Israel.

A reader posted the following elsewhere. I’d like to quote what the reader wrote in this reply (if the reader does not mind at all…) Quote: “It’s kind of hard to speak of the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture when there are words and verses missing. Plus you have verses in brackets saying they aren’t in certain manuscripts. If I were an unbeliever and picked it up, I would wonder why a Christian can trust in the Word of God when the very Bible they read places doubts on whether or not a verse is supposed to be there or not. Also, considering none of the reformers used the critical text, can we really characterize it as “reformed.”U Unquote.

Josh Buice
on May 14, 2013 at 11:52 am

Mike – although you are right, specific versions like the ESV note that certain verses are not in the most reliable manuscript families. That’s honesty and necessary when translating God’s Word.

Furthermore, not one key doctrine related to salvation is altered through the verses that are not contained in the modern translations.

The modern translations are about getting the translation right and that’s a big deal. So, we must approach this issue with clarity and maturity as we consider the depth of it. It’s more than “the 1611 KJV” is the best option.

According to whom that is was not omitted? you are stating in the best manuscripts yet the Syrian manuscript is older then both your supposed better scripts and it agrees with the textus receptis. Before one seeks to know the truth they usually say statements like the better or more accurate. Yet who is telling the tale? Jesus? Moses? or a modern day prophet? or lets say someone who stands to gain financially. Look up copyright laws in the USA.

Tim
on March 26, 2015 at 1:49 pm

Josh, what are the “most reliable manuscripts” that you are referring to? Also, modern translations are NOT about getting translation right because they violate half of the laws of textual criticism! If they were to apply the same actions of translation to classic works such as Homer’s Odyssey they would be outraged.

Micah
on May 23, 2013 at 1:48 pm

TOP 5 for thought:

1) KJV has no copyright. Copyrights=$

2) KJV is easier to read and by a lot when you get the stats. KJV wins on being an easier and lower reading grade level than ESV. Also on sentence complexity, vocabulary complexity, short sentences, simple sentences, avg words per sentence.

3) Changing masculinity of God and authority of men/husband in families. ESV is a gender-neutral seeking or “pc” bible. The word “man, men” is neutered in the ESV 968 times. The masculine pronoun, “he, him, his” is neutered 1832 times! And the modern neutral “human” is employed 63 times.

4) The problem of ESV and Proverbs 30:5-6 & Rev 22:18-19. ESV takes 17 full verses, and over 33,000 words from the NT alone!

5) The Westcott-Hort problem. To counter you on your point #4…There are two main lines of Bibles: one coming from Antioch the capital of Syria (known as the Syrian or Byzantine type text), and one coming from Alexandria, Egypt (known as the Egyptian or Hesycnian type text). Antioch is where the early believers were first called Christians (Acts 11:26) and within a few years the Syrian believers could be numbered by the thousands. Their Bible, the Peshitta, even today generally follows the Received Text (Textus Receptus). This is another proof that the foundation for the King James Bible (which was based on Textus Receptus) is older and more reliable than the Codex Vaticanus. The Syrian text from Antioch is the Majority text while the Egyptian text is the minority text from which the new versions arise. When modern translators “correct” the King James Bible with “more authoritative manuscripts” or “older manuscripts,” or “the best authorities”, they are usually making some reference to the Greek manuscripts of Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus from Minority text. These two are corrupt fourth century writings, primarily relied by 2 British Scholars Westcott and Hort, for re-constructing their Greek text (1851-1871) on which the new Bible versions are based upon. The Greek text of Westcott and Hort changed the reading of the Textus Receptus in 5,337 places.

6) God can do anything. The Holy Spirit can do anything. Jesus can do anything. Helen Keller knew the LORD before she knew his name. So the LORD can do anything using any version and any one/thing/situation. We should not attack each other, just the issues, and not based on ego or being right, but about being as closely aligned to Jesus as possible and nothing else. I pray each of you prays and meets the LORD individually and follows no man.

Steve
on August 11, 2013 at 10:54 am

Micah,

I do not claim to be a expert on this matter, but in reply to your post:

1. The KJV DOES has a copyright in it’s originating country.
2. Relative.
3. All of this neutering..don’t compare the ESV to the KJV..compare it to the greek. What is the standard? The KJV or the greek?
4. Did the texts behind the ESV remove all of that or did the texts behind the KJV add all of that?
5. None..I repeat NONE of the modern translations use the Westcott and Hort text. They use an eclectic approach. And before you condemn that, the eclectic approach is exactly what Erasmus used with the 6 or so text he had to “develop” the TR. This is the exact same method used today by modern translators. They just happen to have MORE texts than what Erasmus had. Also, do some research about the Bishop of Alexandria who had to confront the heresy going on in Syrian Antioch. You might be surprised (if you have the ability to be objective).The vast majority of the early church father quotes (over 80,000) follow the Alexandrian type. For the most part of early church history, the Byzantine type (from which your TR follows) was the minority. The Alexandrian were the majority type. Strange, huh? Also, the “Christian” title applied in Antioch probably wasn’t a term of endearment. It was more than likely a derogatory way to address those weird people who were piling up around the city.
6. Absolutely agreed!

You are wrong on the westcott and Hort text as they do most certainly use the texts, They also use the texts from the Hebrew translated by Ruolph Kettle and Gerhert Kettle. Both Nazi High priests who sought to have their own version of a white god. They use many amnuscripts and use the alexandrian more then any. They also call The devil the morning star in Isaiah. A title given only to Jesus in revelations. They also contradict themselves in Psalms and in the new testament as they misquote very badly. There is a copyright on the KJV in England and it is over 400 years now and public domain. It was left that way so no one could change it as they did all modern versions to get a copyright in America. Yeah I will go with no corporation would ever try to make money by changing the bible. Thats a great stance. Ya have to ommit, change and add to so much just to get a copyright. So how could any one of the corporations ever make the case KJV added to it when they are the ones omitting, adding to and changing to get a new copyright so they can make all the money.

Chuck Timmerman
on November 3, 2014 at 4:05 pm

Unfortunately there are too many Christian’s these days that only consider the Bibles that are ‘around’; like the KJV … which is A-OK in my opinion.

WHY??

Well, I am not a Preacher and not a good Christian … but I do believe in God, Jesus, the members mentioned in the 12 versions … and others as well.

Now, while I am (what it looks like to be) attacking others, I am not … by any means. BUT … I will tell them, and others, that such things in the Bible, like in the current years ‘Bible’, is (more than anything) not accurate or fully true. WHY ???

Because the verses that were written over 1thousand years ago … and likely another 8-900 added … is not accurately created….BARE NONE ! ! !

As this posting above says, other folks than american Christains, 1500+- years ago, wrote things in their language…not our american words by any case. NO….their words were, and likely are still, incorrectly transmitted by the 2000+- years who feel ‘they know it all’ … like my recent pastor.

OK /// here’s why.

My ancestor, of a grandfather level, had a daughter … my mother … that when she was of birth age … say 14-18 or more … to create a baby. Why ?

Being a ‘ranch’ of the early 1900’s, in Georgia backwoods, the owner … aka grandparent … wanted workers like slaves of the mid 1800 years. But, since (so-called) slave was no longer in progress, they had their own ‘slaves’ … called children.

Well, my mother … and then later on verified it before they all died in the 1999’s … informed me, her earliest son, that she had delivered babies; created by her father rapping her; that were females emails, were within an hour or 2 … to be burdered; head cut off; throat slicked open … how ever he could do; so that he would not have to feed them; and so that he might be able to create a male son; also known as ‘slave’.

So, knowing this, and then in a church that I loved much, on a Sunday the preacher began to teach that Paul, of the Bible, said that all of us are sinners.

Well, as an old fellow of over 70 years, I do not agree; but did immediately to have the statement clarified; ALL babies … or certain ones a few months, year or whatever later.

So I stood up and asked about the child that is born, and within 1 hour was murdered, was she a sinful child.

ANSWER…”YES”!

No room to correct; ask about; etc.; etc…. just accept that ALL of God’s creation are sinful … irregardless of age.

Round and round went nowhere…. except that I no longer go to have the pastor ‘teach’. Ironically, another family also touched on the circumstances for their knowledge, and they too got denied.

So, again … while not against the Bible of the 2014 age … I strongely feel that the words in the Bible of that year, and earlier as well, are flawed by failure of transmission…but with one knowing of the age … 2000+- years … he/she should be prepared….IMO.

GOD does not feel … IMO … that a baby, 1 hour/minutes alive before death … is a sinner.

CASE CLOSED !

Jon
on June 15, 2015 at 3:59 am

Hi Pastor,

Thank you for your article. I have one short question. How or why did you decide on the ESV, let’s say over the NASB? Thanks and I look forward to your reply.

Josh Buice
on July 1, 2015 at 11:23 am

Jon,

I like the ESV text and it provides a good smooth English rendering in our modern tongue. However, I’m also committed to a “word for word” translation rather than a “phrase for phrase” approach. The ESV accomplishes both of these in a really good way. I do enjoy the NASB and it’s a very solid translation as well.

joshua mcclelland
on September 29, 2015 at 9:33 am

Since when is it ok to give up on something because it is hard. I feel kjv makes u study it more. Even with that said, my daughter reads and understands it. I just dont see a reason to change it.

joshua mcclelland
on September 29, 2015 at 10:22 am

There are so Many discrepancies in esv it is almost laughable. (Not at all). Esv omits 17 verses completely. Removes hell 40 times. Removes devils and devil 83 times. I think u can understand the danger in removing hell from the bible. Plus Isaiah 7.14 removes the virgin birth altogether. Look at your esv bible. Altogether 33000 words are removed just from the new testament. I dont think that homers the iliad would have the same meaning minus 33000 words. I challenge u to look deeper into the modern translations. Dont take my word for it. These are perverted texts to guide modern society softly away from god.

Highlight the citation you mentioned, and you will see that the ESV *does* reference the virgin birth at that point. I think you are confusing it with the NRSV.

joshua mcclelland
on September 29, 2015 at 10:00 am

Not to mention all of the gender neutral changes. Plus the fact that they omit 17 verses all together. Hell is removed 40 times. Devil removed 83 times. Imagine the confusion that can happen if u never heard of hell. Please dont take my word for it do the research. I just learned of this a couple months ago. These texts are to perverse gods word.

Josh Buice
on September 29, 2015 at 12:19 pm

Joshua,

Thanks for posting. I think it would be a good idea to keep the discussion on the manuscripts rather than the English text. If the ESV is removing words from the original manuscripts – that’s something we all need to know about and certainly a top tier concern. However, to argue on the basis of English translations that are operating from different manuscript families is not a good method when discussing textual variants.

Older manuscripts used by the ESV and other modern translations are simply more reliable than the younger manuscript families used by the KJV. Furthermore, if the words were added in at a later point by a scribe as opposed to the original author, we shouldn’t embrace that as holy Scripture – no matter if it’s the word “hell” or “heaven” or any other hot topic worthy of consideration. Additions are additions – right?

I would encourage you to read James White’s book – “The King James Only Controversy” on this very subject. It’s worthy of your attention.

joshua mcclelland
on September 30, 2015 at 3:35 am

I am not against different translations. As long as the meaning is the same. I haven’t found a modern translation that does not corrupt the word. Operating from different manuscript families is what worries me. I know u said to refrain from English translation but this expresses my concerns. Luke 11:2,11:3,11:4.
Or the lords prayer. And he said to them “Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.
Not only are they leaving out which art in heaven,but also thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Then also deliver us from evil. See the pattern of leaving heaven and hell out of these texts. I feel as this is deliberate. On another post i commented on the gender change in esv. I guess to be politically correct. Is this not changing the meaning of the doctrine. Along with leaving out and footnoting very .important parts of the Bible. There are 2 sides to everthing but the kjv has a lot more time in the church to be studied. I haven’t seen a contradiction yet. I urge you to look for the change in the meaning which changes the message. And if this is true your congregation will be learning something kinda like the word of god. Other than this i have been following some of your teachings. I have to say i agree with most of the things I’ve seen. Keep on discerning for those who can not see. God bless you.

Jared Songster
on November 7, 2015 at 2:18 pm

Compare the ESV and KJV in Philippians 2:6:

ESV: “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,”

KJV: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:”

That discrepancy, in that one verse alone, should prove that you cannot uphold both the Critical text and the Majority text as scripture simultaneously.

If we, as Christians, hold that God’s Word is perfect, we must hold that it is capable of being found intact and still perfect today. The substantive changes between the Critical Text and the Majority prove that we can only affirm one as scripture.

Jared

Scholastic 1
on November 28, 2015 at 11:17 pm

Do you believe that the KJV is based on the majority text? Do you believe that everyone uses the exact same words when they translate? Do you also believe that the Wycliffe and Tyndale bibles were not the word of God? What about the Geneva bible? To conclude that the KJV is the only translation, you have to conclude a lot of other things that aren’t true.

David McClean
on December 28, 2015 at 5:35 am

Very interesting article.

I have been a ‘to the death’ defender of the KJV for some time now, and would have walked out of a service if someone opened any other version.

But for some reason your article struck a chord with me and I’ve ordered an ESV study bible.

I see in some of the ‘KJV only’ supporters comments here the same words, arguments and reasons that I have held very dear….and strangely I see the same hard, graceless, loveless arrogance that has also attached itself to my personality.

For all my ranting defending the KJV, for all my ability to quote scripture after scripture I see a lack of love in myself.

Thank you for this article – possibly it has set me on the road to the better way of love rather than a clanging cymbal.

In Christ,

David.

Steve
on January 3, 2016 at 12:37 pm

regardless of some statistic its very clear that the common man in 2016, struggles with accuratlty interperating the kjv. the kjv also detures young readers to actually be interested and involved with the word. my daughter whos 10 loves to read from her ESV and can resite many stories and messages of god accuratly (so calling it the devils bible is a crock of crap) yet when she tries to read from my kjv in which she has tried many times she cannot paint the picture and spends much of her time googling meanings and resorting to the back of the book. ESV is a great bible to begin your studies and relationship with god. KJV is better for an experienced bible reader who wishes to go further in understanding.

Matt
on January 27, 2016 at 2:15 pm

Hi Josh,
I have 35 print English translations, and a bunch more translations on my computer. I have Westcott and Hort, NA27, UBS4, Scrivenor’s, Robinson and Pierpoint,etc., etc. I read bunches of people from Tregelles to Burgon, Metzger and Ehrman and on and on. I’ve been all over the map regarding translations and textual issues in the past forty odd years. The KJV is my go to translation. I believe the TR is a better critical text than the more modern ones, because it reflects the majority of texts, and the texts that show the best evidence of careful copying, and the texts used by Greek churches to whom most epistles of the New Testament were actually written. Having said that,

Old School
on March 30, 2016 at 12:08 am

When you get a bible version, just remember that many of the same sorts of people who are involved in introducing heresy into the church today (social justice, gay marriage, disco balls and smoke generators into services) have their fingers into the “advancement” of modern bible translation.

Would I like a KJV 2016 in the tradition of the 1600-1700 change that tidys up a bit of the grammar without ommitting verses and referencing other inferior texts? Sure. I just don’t think the modern American church is capable of producing it without corrupting it.

A Word About DBG

Delivered By Grace is a theology blog that focuses on theology, SBC, preaching, the church, and many issues within the Christian life. Delivered By Grace is edited by Josh Buice and contributed to by various other preachers and writers. Unless otherwise noted, articles are written by Josh Buice.

Permissions: You can use the material found here at DBG, but you should properly cite the location by providing the author's name and a link to the page where the information is found.